Kofi Annan, the special envoy on Syria, provided the U.N. Security Council this week with another maddeningly inconclusive update on his peace plan.

Yes, Syria has stopped shelling residential neighborhoods. No, it has not stopped its crackdown or called off its snipers.

In essence, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has provided just enough good behavior to keep the diplomatic initiative alive and U.N. sanctions at bay.

The depressing reality, say U.N. diplomats, is that while the Annan plan offers slim hope of bringing about serious political change in Syria it is being kept afloat by the simple fact that no one has a better plan, and no major outside power is willing to commit the military resources to challenge Assad's rule.

The diplomacy played out against a background of mounting uncertainty in Syria, as an unidentified group detonated a massive explosion near a team of U.N. observers. "It is a testament to the difficulty and the danger of the task entrusted to our U.N. observers, and it is a reminder of the risks of violence escalating even further," U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the U.N. General Assembly today.

Meanwhile, the Syrian government's security strategy has shifted as the government has come to pursue a low-intensity security operation to crush dissent while limiting the U.N. monitors' freedom of movement. Ban expressed frustration at the "growing numbers of arrest and allegations of brutal torture" as well as an "alarming upsurge in the use of IEDs, and other explosive devices throughout the country."

Under questioning from Western diplomats, the U.N.'s peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, told the Security Council behind closed doors on Tuesday that while there has been a "noticeable reduction" in the use of heavy weapons and shelling in residential areas there have been a continuation of lower-scale military operations, including sniper fire, and widespread arrests, according to council diplomats who heard the briefing.

"The shift suggests more of a change in tactics rather than a change of heart," said a council diplomat present at the meeting. "Ladsous made it clear that the violent incidents continue."
In his public statement, Annan has presented a gloomy, but highly cautious and balanced account of events on the ground, noting that both the government and the opposition have violated the terms of an April 12 cease-fire he brokered.

"There has been some decrease in the military activities but there are still serious violations in the cessation of violence that was agreed and the levels of violence and abuses are unacceptable," Annan told reporters in Geneva on Tuesday. "Government troops and armor are still present, though in smaller formations. There have been worrying episodes of violence by the Government, but we have also seen attacks against Government forces, troops and installations, and there has been a spate of bombings which are really worrying."

But Annan said that "the presence of our observers, and, in situations where they have intervened specifically, have not only had a calming effect, but sometimes they have been able to get the forces involved to do the right thing."

Behind closed doors, Ladsous said that despite numerous efforts by Syrian security forces to prevent the U.N. from patrolling sensitive areas they have ultimately secured access to the places they need to see.

But he outlined the challenges that U.N. monitors are facing in Syria, saying the U.N. has been unable to secure an agreement from Syria to allow the monitors to travel on their own planes and helicopters within the country.

Ladsous dismissed a suggestion by Russia's U.N. envoy Vitaly Churkin that the U.N. simply paint some Syrian military helicopters white, the standard color of U.N. vehicles, and use them, saying it would risk undermining the blue helmets independence and endanger their lives.

Those U.N. monitors that patrol on ground have been subject to highly intrusive "surveillance" by security forces closely shadowing the U.N. inspectors, scaring civilians from talking to the monitors. He also cited reports that opposition figures who met with the monitors have been subsequently targeted by Syrian security. "

Ladsous said the monitors are under constant surveillance and sometimes it is intrusive," said a council diplomat.

On May, 4, Syrian security agents blocked a U.N. convoy at a checkpoint near Daraa, and pointed loaded weapons at the unarmed blue berets, Ladsous told the council. The standoff was resolved when a more senior Syrian official intervened, apologized, and let them on their way.

Despite the setbacks, both Ladsous and Annan said that the small contingent of U.N. monitors in Syria were having a "calming" influence on events and that the best way to build on it was to deploy more monitors.

"I know lots of questions have been asked about what happens if the plan fails," Annan said. "I am waiting for some suggestions as to what else we do. I think if there are better ideas, I will be the first to jump onto it.... We may well conclude down the line that it doesn't work and a different tack has to be taken. And that will be a very sad day."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Every several months, a U.N. Panel of Experts issues a report documenting Sudan's extensive violations of U.N. Security Council sanctions in Darfur, and pleads with the council's big powers to use their influence to persuade Khartoum and anti-government rebel groups to comply.

And every time, their appeals for backup are largely ignored, especially by China and Russia, which supply Khartoum with some of the arms and firepower that fuel Darfur's fighting, and which have routinely refused to fully cooperate with the panel's experts as they seek to trace the origins of prohibited weapons from factories in China and Russia.

Three former panel members, Claudio Gramizzi of Italy, Michael Lewis of Britain, and Jerome Tubiana of France, recently produced an unofficial report arguing that the international commitment to sanctions had eroded so much that even the United Nations itself was flouting the sanctions, facilitating the travel of a rebel field commander, Jibril Abdul Kareem, nicknamed "Tek," who was subject to a Security Council travel ban, to peace talks in Doha, Qatar.

The Tek episode is simply one nugget buried away in a confidential 80-plus page report, first reported by Africa Confidential, that documents systematic violations of a six-year-old U.N. arms embargo, travel ban, and asset freeze, imposed on Khartoum and rebel leaders in an effort to contain the violence in Sudanese province.

But the episode provides a depressing illustration of how an initiative that once enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of the council's major Western powers -- the United States, Britain, and France -- has become such a low priority that few key players in the region take it seriously anymore.

The Security Council first imposed an arms embargo on armed groups in Darfur in 2004, and expanded it the following year to include the government. The council also slapped a travel ban and an asset freeze on the leaders of both pro-government and anti-government armed groups in Darfur, including the government backed militia known as the Janjaweed, which gained international notoriety for its scorched earth raids, conducted on camels and backed by Sudanese air power, against countless Darfurian villages.

The measures were designed to curtail a massive wave of violence -- that ultimately led to the death of at least 300,000 people and the displacement of many times that number -- and to constrain the Sudanese government from carrying out mass murder in Darfur.

The report's three authors resigned late last summer over a dispute with the panel's Indian coordinator, who produced a competing official report. The panel, they wrote, "suffered from a major dissension" within the ranks. The coordinator, they complained, had insisted that each of the panel's five members conduct their work independently without coordinating or sharing information, a policy they believed undermined the panel's effectiveness.  But officials familiar with the dispute said the difference ran much deeper, reflecting a lack of faith in the integrity and competence of the panel's leadership.  Eric Reeves, a Smith College literature professor and Sudan activist, has written his own take on the report, highlighting the dissidents' far more critical account of the human rights situation in Darfur than the authors of the official U.N. report.

The Security Council's enthusiasm for the U.N. panel's work waned years ago, according to experts. In 2009, Enrico Carisch, a former head of the sanctions panel, testified before Congress that the Security Council had failed to act on more than 100 panel recommendations aimed at strengthening the sanctions. He also faulted the United States, France, and Britain for doing little to force a more public debate.

Carisch, currently an independent consultant who trains U.N. panel experts, told Turtle Bay that the dissidents' decision to produce a "shadow" report highlighted some of the institutional weakness of the U.N. sanctions system. At the same time, he said their breadth of the findings highlight the value of their work. "The powerful evidence reported by these experts demonstrates how skillful and sustained sanctions monitoring is important to shine a light into the darkest corners of conflict areas," Carisch said.  

The dissidents' expert report assails Khartoum for systematically violating the arms embargo, thwarting efforts of U.N. experts to enforce sanctions, and conducting ethnic cleansing against the Zaghawa tribe. It documents Sudan's use of use of Chinese small-caliber ammunition, Russian Mi-24 attack helicopters, Ukrainian tanks, and Belarussian Sukhoi-25 fighter jets

But it also provides a devastating account of the U.N. panels' own efforts to monitor and enforce the U.N. sanctions. Indeed, the report challenges much of the underlying evidence used to justify sanctions against "Tek" and two other rebel leaders, Adam Yaqub and Musa Hilal, the latter a notorious Janjaweed leader. The reports, produced by a previous team of U.N. panel experts, were riddled with inaccuracies, including misspelled names and unsupportable claims. For instance, the report notes that there may have been ample evidence that Hilal commanded militia engaged in widespread atrocities in his stronghold in north Darfur. But it also expressed serious doubts that he was responsible for the crime the U.N. panel attributed to him to justify sanctions. 

In April 2006, the U.N. panel accused Hilal of leading a Sept. 28, 2005, militia raid on the West Darfur villages of Acho, Aro Sharrow, and Gozmena, to seek revenge for the death of one of his sons who was purportedly killed by a rebel movement linked to the towns. The dissidents' report, however, said Hilal did not lead West Darfur's militias and that "it is unproved and unlikely that Musa Hilal was responsible and/or present"  at the scene of the raids. The report also said it found no evidence that Hilal's son had been killed.

While the dissidents questioned the justification for Jibril's designation on the sanctions list they also argued that the U.N. still has an obligation to enforce those measures.  But on July 20, 2010, Jibril traveled to Qatar with a travel document -- known as a laissez passer -- issued by the deputy chief of staff of the United Nations-African Union Joint Mediation Support Team(JMST). The visit, which lasted a year, was part of a Qatari-led mediation effort to broker a peace settlement between Khartoum and several Darfuri rebel groups.

The dissident panel members said the U.N. violation of sanctions in this instance was unnecessary. A provision in the six-year-old sanctions resolution -- Resolution 1591 -- includes an exemption allowing travel for sanctioned individuals participating in peace initiatives. However, the exemption can only be approved by the Security Council committee that oversees sanctions.

"The members of the panel are unaware of any request by the JSMT or from UNAMID [The U.N. African Union Mission in Darfur] to the sanctions committee for permission to issue this document or to authorize the travel of Tek by air to Qatar," the report states. "Jibril ‘Tek's' presence in Doha represents a case of violation of the sanctions regime." 

But the larger issue, according to the dissidents, is what the episode says about the U.N.'s ability and commitment to apply its own sanctions fairly and with conviction. "Should access to Darfur, and more generally cooperation from member states, United Nations and African Union bodies working in or on Darfur, as well as the general ability of the panel to provide accurate justifications for individual sanctions and monitor them, not increase in the future, the very existence of both the panel and the sanctions mechanism should be seriously reconsidered."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has proposed the U.N. Security Council establish a full-fledged U.N. monitoring mission for Syria with an initial 300 unarmed blue berets, backed by air transport, and with the authority to carry out unimpeded investigations into possible cease-fire violations by the Syrian government or armed opposition.

The new mission would be deployed within weeks after the 15-nation council adopts a resolution creating the new mission, which would be called the U.N. Supervision Mission in Syria (UNMIS). Ban suggested that the mission might need to be enlarged and that he would come back to the council within 90 days with a new plan to "further develop and define the mission's mandate, scope and methods of work."

"It would be a nimble presence that would constantly and rapidly observe, establish and assess the facts and conditions on the ground in an objective manner, and engage all relevant parties," Ban wrote of the new mission. His 8-page report was distributed to the Security Council tonight and will be made public shortly. Security Council diplomats say they hope a resolution can be voted on by early next week.

The report provides a mixed account of the security conditions on the ground since the U.N. deployed its first monitors three days ago in Syria, noting that "it remains a challenge to assess accurately unconfirmed and conflicting reports of developments in Syria."

Ban wrote that "levels of violence dropped markedly" in Syria since April 12, when a U.N.-brokered cease fire went into effect, "however, the Syrian Government has yet to fully implement its initial obligations regarding the actions and deployments of its troops and heavy weapons, or to return them to barracks. Violent incidents and reports of casualties have escalated again in recent days, with reports of shelling of civilian areas and abuses by government forces. The Government reports violent actions by armed groups. The cessation of armed violence in all its forms is therefore clearly incomplete."

The reports say that the U.N. monitors had been initially blocked from visiting the town of Homs, but that they were granted "freedom of movement" during a visit to Deraa on Tuesday, where they found no evidence of armed violence or heavy weapons. Visits to three other towns, including Jobar, Zamalka, and Arbeen in Rif Damascus revealed continuing military presence at multiple checkpoints, as well as an armored personnel carried hidden under a plastic sheet.

The report also documented an incident in Arbeen that ended in violence.

"The situation in Arbeen became tense when a crowd that was part of an opposition demonstration forced United Nations vehicles to a checkpoint. Subsequently, the crowd was dispersed by firing projectiles. Those responsible for the firing could not be ascertained by the United Nations Military Observers. No injuries were observed by the United Nations advance team. One United Nations vehicle was damaged slightly during the incident."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Full text of Ban Ki-moon's letter to the U.N. Security Council:

18 April 2012

Her Excellency/Ms. Susan Rice/President of the Security Council/New York

Excellency,

1. Further to operative paragraph 5 of Security Council resolution 2042 (2012), and to the briefing of the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, Kofi Annan, to the Security Council on 12 April 2012, I wish to outline a proposal for a United Nations supervision mission in Syria (UNSMIS) for an initial period of three months. I recommend that the Council authorize such a mission, with the understanding that I will consider relevant developments on the ground, including the consolidation of the cessation of the violence, to decide on deployments.

Background

2. The protracted crisis in Syria over the past 13 months has seen many thousands killed, injured, detained or displaced. The violence has been characterized by use of heavy weapons in civilian areas and widespread violations of human rights, while aspirations for political change in the country have not been met. I remain deeply concerned about the gravity of the situation in the country. However, without under-estimating the serious challenges ahead, an opportunity for progress may now exist, on which we need to build.

3. On 25 March 2012, the Syrian Government committed to an initial six-point plan proposed by the Joint Special Envoy, which has the full support of the Security Council. This plan includes provisions for immediate steps by the Syrian Government, and a cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilize the country. To this end, it requires the Syrian government immediately to cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres and to begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres.

It also requires a range of other steps by the Syrian Government to alleviate the crisis, including humanitarian access, access to and release of detainees, access and freedom of movement for journalists, and freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully. The plan embodies the need for an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people.

4. On 11 April 2012, the Syrian Government stated it would cease all military operations throughout the entire country, and similar commitments were obtained from the armed opposition. Accordingly, for the first time in over one year, a cessation of violence was declared and went into effect across Syria at 0600 hours on 12 April 2012. This was an important step by all parties in de-escalating the situation. It now must be effectively sustained.

5. The engagement of many states with influence on the parties was and remains critical to furthering this process. The Security Council has spoken with one voice through its presidential statements of 3 August, 21 March and 5 April and resolution 2042 of 14 April. The Council's continued unity is also of critical importance in seeking a pacific settlement of the crisis.

Developments since 12 April

6. Given the lack of presence on the ground other than the first members of the Advance Team who arrived three days ago, it remains a challenge to assess accurately unconfirmed and conflicting reports of developments in Syria. Nevertheless, it appears that levels of violence dropped markedly on 12 April and the following days, with a concomitant decrease in reports of casualties. However, the Syrian Government has yet to fully implement its initial obligations regarding the actions and deployments of its troops and heavy weapons, or to return them to barracks. Violent incidents and reports of casualties have escalated again in recent days, with reports of shelling of civilian areas and abuses by government forces. The Government reports violent actions by armed groups. The cessation of armed violence in all its forms is therefore clearly incomplete. At the same time, in accordance with their acceptance of the six-point plan, the parties have continued to express their commitment to a cessation of armed violence in all its forms and have agreed to cooperate with a United Nations supervision mechanism to observe and strengthen both sides commitment to a cessation.

7. The advance team of up to 30 unarmed military observers authorized by the Security Council in paragraph 7 of resolution 2042 (2012) began to deploy on 16 April 2012. It has commenced liaison with the parties and is beginning to report on the cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties. This team is led by a Colonel and will be swiftly augmented by the necessary mission support personnel, including ordnance experts and United Nations security officers.

8. The team visited Deraa on 17 April 2012. During its two to three hour presence in the city, it enjoyed freedom of movement. It observed no armed violence or heavy weapons in the city. It observed no major military concentrations, but several points were occupied at section level, and buses and trucks with soldiers were dispersed throughout the city. The team visited Jobar, Zamalka and Arbeen in Rif Damascus today. It reported military presence at checkpoints and around some public squares and buildings in all three locations. In Arbeen, one armoured personnel carrier was hidden, covered by a plastic sheet. The situation in Arbeen became tense when a crowd that was part of an opposition demonstration forced United Nations vehicles to a checkpoint. Subsequently, the crowd was dispersed by firing projectiles. Those responsible for the firing could not be ascertained by the United Nations Military Observers. No injuries were observed by the United Nations advance team. One United Nations vehicle was damaged slightly during the incident. The team expects to visit Rif Daraa tomorrow. The team's initial request to visit Homs was not granted, with officials claiming security concerns.

9. Action on other aspects of the six-point plan remains partial, and, while difficult to assess, it does not amount yet to the clear signal expected from the Syrian authorities. Regarding the right to protest peacefully, numerous demonstrations were organized on 13 April after Friday prayers, one day after the date of the cessation of violence. Reports issued by local opposition groups suggest that these were met with a more restrained response than in previous incidents of protest, but there were nevertheless attempts to intimidate protesters, including reports of incidents of rifle fire by government troops. On detainees, on 5 April the International Committee for the Red Cross announced that it had agreed with the Syrian Government on procedures for visits to places of detention and that this would be put into practice with a visit to Aleppo prison. However, the status and circumstances of thousands of detainees across the country remains unclear and there continue to be concerning reports of significant abuses. There has been no significant release of detainees. On 12 April the Syrian Government said entry visas were granted to "53 Arab and foreign journalists" between 25 March and 12 April. We have no further information on this. All journalists must have full freedom of movement throughout the country.

10. Meanwhile, on the issue of humanitarian access, while the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) needs assessment report identified one million people in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria, no substantive progress has been achieved over the last weeks of negotiations on access to those in need, or in increasing the capacity of organizations on the ground.

11. Developments since 12 April underline the importance of sending a clear message to the authorities that a cessation of armed violence must be respected in full, and that action is needed on all aspects of the six-point plan. Actions on the ground must be consistent with stated commitments to carry out the six-point plan. At the same time, the very fragility of the situation underscores the importance of putting in place arrangements that can allow impartial supervision and monitoring. A United Nations monitoring mission deployed quickly when the conditions are conducive with a clear mandate, the requisite capacities, and the appropriate conditions of operation would greatly contribute to observing and upholding the commitment of the parties to a cessation of armed violence in all its forms and to supporting the implementation of the six-point plan.

Proposed mission

12. An expanded mission, UNSMIS, would comprise an initial deployment of up to 300 United Nations Military Observers. They would be deployed incrementally over a period of weeks, in approximately ten locations throughout Syria. It would be a nimble presence that would constantly and rapidly observe, establish and assess the facts and conditions on the ground in an objective manner, and engage all relevant parties. It would be headed by a Chief Military Observer at the rank of Major-General. UNSMIS would additionally comprise substantive and mission support personnel with a range of skills, including advisors with political, human rights, civil affairs, public information, public security, gender and other expertise. These elements would be essential to ensure comprehensive monitoring of and support to the parties for the full implementation of the six-point plan. Given the size of the country and the challenges on the ground, the mission would need to maximize the effectiveness of its supervision and observation responsibilities with effective informational awareness and information management so that it uses its resources effectively. UNSMIS would be funded through the peacekeeping account.

13. Consistent with paragraph 5 of resolution 2042, UNSMIS should monitor a cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties and relevant aspects of the Joint Special Envoy's six-point proposal. Regarding a cessation of armed violence, it should be noted that the Syrian Government's full implementation and adherence to its obligations to cease troop movements towards population centres, cease all use of heavy weapons in population centres, and begin the pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres are critical, and that the withdrawal of all troops and heavy weapons from population centres to their barracks is important to facilitate a sustained cessation of violence. Equally, all parties, including both the Government and the opposition, must sustain a cessation of armed violence in all its forms. These will be the areas of monitoring by the military observers who, in the course of their duties to supervise the cessation of violence, will pay due regard to other aspects of the six-point-plan.

14. In this regard, it should also be noted that human rights abuses have characterized much of the fighting over the past thirteen months, and that any cessation of armed violence must necessarily encompass a cessation of such abuses, including torture, arbitrary detentions, abductions, sexual violence and other abuses against women, children and minorities. The free movement of journalists throughout the country and the respect of freedom of association and the right of Syrians to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed will also be critical. The release of persons arbitrarily detained is a key commitment of the Government under the six point plan that would provide a significant signal of the serious intent of the Government effectively to implement the plan in its entirety and create the conditions for a political solution through peaceful dialogue.

15. UNSMIS would not be involved in the delivery, coordination, and monitoring of humanitarian assistance. The coordination of humanitarian assistance is the responsibility of the Emergency Relief Coordinator. It should be noted in this regard that all parties, particularly the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, must allow immediate, full and unimpeded access of humanitarian personnel to all people in need and to cooperate fully with the United Nations and relevant humanitarian organizations to facilitate the swift provision of humanitarian assistance.

16. A supervision mission that has the capacity, through military observers and civilian personnel, to monitor and support a cessation of violence in all its forms and the implementation of the remaining aspects of the six-point plan could help create the conditions for a comprehensive political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition. Such a supervision mission would be important to sustain peace and a meaningful political process in the country. This would provide important support for the Joint Special Envoy's efforts to facilitate a Syrian-led political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people and brings about a political solution to the crisis in Syria.

17. In committing to the six-point plan, the Government of Syria has indicated its consent to an effective UN supervision mechanism. As of 18 April, discussions with the Government of Syria on preliminary understandings to provide the basis for a protocol governing the deployment of the Advance Team and of a UN supervision mission made progress and are continuing. Other parties to the conflict have indicated their readiness to work with a mission. It is essential in this regard that the actions of the Government in particular are in full conformity with its commitment and with the fundamental principles necessary to enable an effective mission as embodied in resolution 2042. As called for by resolution 2042, it is incumbent upon the Government of Syria to facilitate the expeditious and unhindered deployment of personnel and capabilities of the mission as required to fulfil its mandate; to ensure its full, unimpeded, and immediate freedom of movement and access as necessary to fulfil its mandate; allow its unobstructed communications; and allow it to freely and privately communicate with individuals throughout Syria without retaliation against any person as a result of interaction with the mission. The Syrian authorities have the primary responsibility for the safety of the mission, which should be guaranteed by all parties without prejudice to its freedom of movement and access. This freedom of movement will need to be supported by appropriate air transport assets to ensure mobility and capacity to react quickly to reported incidents. Consultations have taken place to explain these principles to the Government of Syria, including fundamental principles of UN peacekeeping regarding selection of personnel. 

18. I will seek to conclude with the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic an agreement concerning the status of UNSMIS within 30 days of the adoption of the resolution establishing UNSMIS, taking into consideration General Assembly resolution 58/82 on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. In accordance with the customary practice of the United Nations, pending the conclusion of such an agreement, the model status-of-forces agreement dated 9 October 1990 (A/45/594) shall apply provisionally.

19. Member States, in particular the neighboring States, should assist the Advance Team and UNSMIS by ensuring the free, unhindered and expeditious movement to and from the Syrian Arab Republic of all personnel, as well as equipment, provisions, supplies and other goods, including vehicles and spare parts.

20. The mandate and operational posture of the mission proposed herein, including its deployment and structure, would establish an effective observer mission, with the configuration and functions described above. I would intend to further develop and define the mission's mandate, scope and methods of work based on the initial deployment, the evolution of conditions on the ground, and engagements with all relevant parties. Proposals in this regard would be contained in a report to the Security Council as soon as practicable but not more than 90 days after the establishment of UNSMIS.

21. I should be grateful if you could bring this letter urgently to the attention of the members of the Security Council.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Ban Ki-moon

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously today to send up to 30 U.N. blue berets to Syria as the spearhead of a U.N. monitoring mission charged with reinforcing a shaky two-day-long cease-fire between the Syrian government and armed insurgents.

Today's vote places the United Nations at the center of one of the most volatile crises of the Arab Spring and offers the outside world independent eyewitness to the brutality that has unfolded during a 13-month crackdown on anti-government protesters that has left more than 9,000 dead and pitched the country into civil war.

Following the U.N. vote, U.S. and European diplomats welcomed the decision to deploy U.N. monitors in Syria, but said that they remained skeptical about Damascus's willingness to end its violent repression of anti-government targets.

"We are under no illusion -- two days of diminished violence after a year of murderous rampage hardly proves that the regime is serious about honoring its commitments," said Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "Just today serious forces resumed their brutal shelling of Homs and shot innocent mourners in Allepo."

Syria's U.N. envoy, Bashar al-Jaafari, told the council that his government will "spare no effort to guarantee the success" of Special Envoy Kofi Annan's peace plan and that it supports the U.N. monitoring mission -- so long as it doesn't violate Syrian sovereignty. But he said that Syria is currently engaged in negotiations with Annan's team on the mandate of such a mission. For his part, Jaafari claimed Syrian opposition elements have been responsible for 50 violations of the cease-fire, a claim that was challenged by Rice and other council diplomats.

The brittle peace presents serious risks for the United Nations, which has traditionally been reluctant to send its peacekeepers into a hot war where there is no peace to keep and no durable political settlement in place. In Syria, the government and armed and civilian opposition leaders have not even begun to talk to each other.

Still, the council resolution reinforces Annan's six-point plan, which calls on both sides to cease fighting, enter political talks, urges Syria to release political prisoners, guarantees freedom of movements for journalists and humanitarian aid workers, and allows peaceful demonstrations.

The council's action today is the first step in a two-stage process that will lead to the establishment of a full-fledged U.N. monitoring mission staffed with about 250 monitors, most of them recruited from other U.N. missions in the region. Today's resolution calls on the U.N. secretary general to present the council with a detailed blueprint for the monitoring mission by April 18. The council is expected to pass another resolution authorizing the new U.N. mission.

Today's resolution goes beyond Annan's peace plan, however, by pressing Syria to return its security forces and heavy weapons in the barracks. The Annan plan only requires Syria to begin its pullbacks of military assets from key cities.

The resolution also calls on Ban Ki-moon, an outspoken critic of the Bashar al-Assad regime, to report "any obstructions to the effective operation" of the U.N. team to the Security Council, a provision that is likely to increase pressure on the regime to comply. The council will "further steps as appropriate" if the Syrians' or the opposition fail to comply.

Today's action by the council followed a contentious round of negotiations that pitted the United States and its European and Arab allies against Russia. Moscow had opposed efforts to include language requiring Syria to empower the monitors with greater freedom of movement and action, saying their mandate needed to be negotiated with the Syrian government.

In order to secure Russian support, the United States and other key sponsors of the resolution were forced to strip out provisions from the resolution that would have required Syria to provide unimpeded access throughout the country. Instead, it merely "calls upon" the Syrian government to guarantee "full, unimpeded, and immediate freedom of movement and access" for the U.N. monitors.

Analysts said that the new monitoring mission will be unlikely to fundamentally alter the military balance of power in Syria or end the violence, but that it may provide a boost to U.N.-backed efforts to mediate a political settlement.

"I don't think the small monitor team alone can make a difference on the ground," said Marc Lynch, a Middle East scholar at George Washington University. "Its significance is more as a small step to build momentum behind Annan plan, demonstration of international consensus, and test of Assad. The drawn out negotiations for even such a small step don't bode well. It's important to push forward quickly or else the point of such a small step will be lost." 

"The initial deployment of monitors is a political gesture, and could be undercut by a rapid return to violence," said Richard Gowan, a U.N. expert at New York University's Center for International Cooperation. "Nonetheless, the Western powers in the Security Council were right to insist that the monitors should be guaranteed freedom of movement and unimpeded access to civilians."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The U.N. Security Council issued a mild statement deploring North Korea's failed launch of a satellite rocket on Friday, but stopped short of imposing any fresh penalties on the government for its defiance of previous U.N. demands.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, who is presiding over the council's rotating presidency this month, said that Pyongyang had violated two U.N. Security Council resolutions banning missile launches.

"The Security Council deplored this launch, which is in violation of Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874," said Rice, speaking on behalf of the 15-nation council. "Members of the Security Council agree to continue consultations on an appropriate response."

The mild response reflected concern among key council members, including China, that a harsh rebuke could complicate international efforts to contain the nuclear power, prompting North Korea to respond with a fresh nuclear test. It set the stage for lengthy discussions at the U.N. on how to calibrate the council's response.

U.S. officials say they are unlikely to pursue a new round of tough sanctions on Pyongyang in the Security Council, but that they would seek to tighten the enforcement of existing U.N. sanctions. The White House, meanwhile, announced it was backing away from plans to provide humanitarian assistance to North Korea.

The move followed a public rebuke of North Korea from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office. A spokesman for Ban, who is in Geneva, issued a statement saying that "despite its failure, the launch of the so-called "application satellite" by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on 13 April, 2012, is deplorable as it defies the firm and unanimous stance of the international community."

"The Secretary General renews his call on DPRK authorities to work towards building confidence with neighboring countries and improving the life of its people," read the statement. Ban also reaffirmed his commitment to "helping the people of DPRK, in particular, addressing the serious food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will appeal to the Security Council to authorize "as soon as possible" the deployment of a U.N. monitoring mission in Syria as the country witnessed a rare pause in violence, according to a statement by special emissary Kofi Annan. But Ban cautioned that the cease-fire remained extremely "fragile" and could unravel in the face of a single gunshot.

"I am encouraged by reports that the situation in Syria is relatively quiet and that the cessation of hostilities appears to be holding," Annan said in a statement. "Syria is apparently experiencing a rare moment of calm on the ground. This is bringing much-needed relief and hope to the Syrian people who have suffered so much for so long in this brutal conflict. This must now be sustained."

Annan, a former U.N. secretary general who serves as the joint representative for the United Nations and the Arab League, said that he hoped the swift deployment of a U.N. mission would "allow us to move quickly to launch a serious political dialogue that will address the concerns and aspirations of the Syrian people."

Today's developments elicited a rare expression of optimism among U.N. diplomats who have been frustrated by a pattern of unfulfilled promises by President Bashar al-Assad. They remained skeptical about the Syrian government's commitment to abide by the cease-fire. "The world is watching, however, with skeptical eyes, since many promises previously made by the government of Syria have not been kept," Ban told reporters in Geneva.

The Syrian government agreed on April 1 to endorse Annan's six-point peace plan, which called on the Syrian government to halt its use of heavy weapons by April 10, and to begin withdrawing its heavy weapons from urban centers. But Syria intensified its armed assault against several restive cities during the past week, raising concern that the Annan peace plan was on life support.

Bassma Kodmani, spokeswoman for the opposition Syrian National Council, meanwhile, said that the Syria had only "partially observed" the ceasefire, according to Reuters. "There is no evidence of significant withdrawal." But the vague language of Annan's cease-fire deal, which has no deadline for Syria to complete the withdrawal of government forces, appeared to grant Syria considerable leeway to maintain a military presence in towns linked to the opposition.

Still, Annan believes today's pause in fighting provides an opportunity to get a U.N. mission into the country to help reinforce the cease-fire, and potentially lead to the implementation of the other elements of the peace plan, including political talks, the release of political prisoners, access for humanitarian aid workers and journalists, and the right to hold peaceful demonstrations. Norwegian Maj. Gen. Robert Mood has been in Damascus for the past week planning the terms of a monitoring mission consisting of about 250 international monitors, mostly recruited from existing U.N. missions in neighboring countries. 

Mood told Norway's NTB news agency, according to Reuters, that he is "cautiously optimistic" about the prospects for a successful mission. But he cautioned that "Both sides are plagued by a very high degree of mutual suspicion. It's terribly difficult to cross that abyss."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

As Kofi Annan pursues a cease-fire to end the violence in Syria, the U.N.'s peacekeeping department has been developing plans for a mission of about 250 unarmed, international observers to monitor the peace and hopefully to buy some time for political talks to forge a lasting settlement.

But what can U.N. monitors achieve in a country like Syria, where a recent experiment involving roughly 150 poorly equipped, ill-trained Arab League monitors ended in failure? Observers say there are few precedents for the deployment of U.N. observers in the middle of an internal conflict, particularly one like Syria where the armed opposition does not operate under a single chain of command.

The experience of the Arab League monitors, who withdrew in January, provides some clues as to the challenges. In the initial stages of that observation mission, Syria erected a series of bureaucratic hurdles, preventing the outside observers from importing their own communications equipment and limiting their travel within the country.

Even if U.N. observers are able to overcome these hurdles, how would a small group of unarmed foreign observers ensure their independence from government security forces and its own protection from spoilers, including a resurgent al Qaeda?

The British government has begun exploring a series of ideas with the U.N. peacekeeping department about the shape of the new mission, which would likely draw staff from existing U.N. missions in the Middle East, including the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force, the U.N. Truce Supervision Force, and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.

A small team of U.N. peacekeeping planners are headed to Damascus in the coming days to begin preliminary discussions with the government, although a date has not been set.

U.N. officials and outside observers say they expect a long protracted negotiation with the Syrian government over the mission's terms. Both Annan, a former U.N. peacekeeping chief, and one of his principle deputies, Jean-Marie Guehenno, who succeeded Annan as the U.N.'s top peacekeeping official, know better than most the perils of deploying U.N. missions that lack resources or a firm enough mandate to succeed.

In Geneva, Annan's spokesman, Ahmad Fawzi, meanwhile, expressed concern that there has been no halt to the fighting in Syria, and called on Assad to take the first step. "We expect him to implement this plan immediately," Fawzi told reporters, according to the Associated Press. "Clearly, we have not seen a cessation of hostilities and this is of great concern."

"The government must stop first and then discuss a cessation of hostilities with the other side," Fawzi added. "We are appealing to the stronger party to make a gesture of good faith.... The deadline is now."

Richard Gowan, an expert on U.N. peacekeeping at New York University's Center for International Cooperation, said that there will be an "unstoppable pressure" from key powers to deploy foreign monitors in order to show that the world is responding to the violence.

"It will be really tempting to get some observers into the country and say this is a sign of progress. I would urge caution because you could be setting yourself up for another failure," Gowan said. "The Syrians are well placed to manipulate the monitors as they come in."

The U.N. has a long history of deploying observer missions, but they have traditionally been used to monitor cease-fire agreements, or border disputes between states, not internal conflicts. However, there are some precedents.

In 1998, Richard Holbrooke, President Bill Clinton's chief Balkans envoy, negotiated an agreement with the Serbs to deploy the Kosovo Verification Mission in Kosovo, a team of 1,400 observers that enjoyed considerable freedom to monitor violence in the former Serb territory. But the mission, which was established by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, was unable to stem the violence, and was withdrawn the following year when NATO decided to bomb Serbia into compliance. In 2007, the U.N. sent about 180 unarmed U.N. monitors to Nepal, to ensure that Maoist insurgents remained in a set of military cantonments through the country's election. And last year, the U.N. planned to send a couple of hundred monitors to Libya, to support efforts to broker a cease-fire between the government of Muammar al-Qaddafi and the insurgents. The plan was ditched after Qaddafi's government collapsed last fall.

Annan is scheduled to brief the U.N. Security Council on Monday, April 2, by video conference from Geneva on the latest diplomatic development on Syria, and may broach discussions of a monitoring mission. Security Council members say that a new monitoring mission will require the adoption of a new Security Council resolution, but that no one is expected to table one until receiving a request from Annan.

In the meantime, council diplomats have been putting a series of questions on the mandate of a new mission before Annan and the U.N. peacekeeping department. Most importantly, European officials are seeking assurance that U.N. monitors are used to bolster a political transition, not simply to enforce a stand off that favors the Syrian government.

Gowan offers his own recommendations. For a new monitoring mission in Syria to be a success, six basic operational criteria must be fulfilled:

1. Freedom of movement: The Arab League observer mission was under constant supervision by Syrian security personnel, and could not travel to trouble-spots without their minders. To have even minimal credibility, the U.N. mission would need to be able to make monitoring visits on their own initiative. The team would need their own vehicles (probably armored 4x4s) and independent close-protection officers. The Syrian authorities will argue that the observers should notify them in advance of trips for safety's sake. Nonetheless, the U.N, should insist on the right on to make spot-checks with 2-3 hours notice at most.

2. A secure HQ and communications: The Arab observers were headquartered in a hotel, and had use Syrian communications systems to contact the Arab League in Cairo, inevitably compromising their reporting. A credible U.N. mission would need an independent base -- off-limits to Syrian authorities -- and the ability to send encrypted communications to New York. A neutral government such as Switzerland could provide military communications experts to support the mission. It might not take long for the Syrians (with Russian and Iranian help) to crack the codes, but this would at least signal the observers' autonomy.

3. Access to Syrian artillery and armor: The use of big guns and tanks against civilians has been a defining dimension of the conflict. While the Arab observers were meant to oversee the removal of heavy weapons from urban areas, the Syrian Army only made cosmetic withdrawals. Annan and the Security Council have now called for the "end the use of heavy weapons in population centers, and [to] begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centers." U.N. monitors would need to prioritize tracking artillery and armored units, possibly even embedding personnel in their bases away from cities.

4. Satellites and drones: Heavy weapons can also be tracked by drones and satellites -- which the United States has done already -- and the observer mission should make use of these sources. Damascus will object to the U.N. turning to the United States for aerial or satellite intelligence, but the U.N. can get imagery from other sources and has its own satellite imagery analysts. The EU also has a satellite center that could be put at the U.N.'s disposal, and Belgium has a small fleet of drones that it has previously deployed in European peace operations.

5. Special investigators: While "observing" and "monitoring" sound like passive activities, the U.N. could also deploy investigative teams to gain more detailed information on specific incidents -- including bombings and raids by rebel forces. While it's very hard to gather reliable evidence in war zones, small teams of forensic and ballistics specialists may be able to piece together basic facts on new massacres. Although not much of a deterrent in the short term, the presence of these teams may make it possible to hold killers from both sides accountable later, as drawn-out prosecutions in the Balkans have shown.

6. An emergency exit strategy: However effectively the U.N. monitors might perform, there will still be a risk that the situation in Syria will deteriorate again -- and either the government or opposition could try to seize some observers as hostages. There will need to be a military plan to get the monitors out at short notice. Russia, with its base at Tartus, is best-placed to arrange such a plan and could offer to do so as a sign of goodwill towards Kofi Annan. The U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon and the Turkish armed forces -- and possibly Britain, which has forces stationed nearby in Cyprus -- could lend a helping hand.

Kofi Annan today raised the prospect of President Bashar al-Assad's stepping down as part of a final peace deal, marking the first time the international envoy on Syria has hinted that his mediation efforts might lead to a change in leadership.

But there were no signs that Assad was prepared to yield to international pressure to step aside or to even halt a military campaign that drew fresh claims by opposition activists that government forces continue to shell parts of the city of Homs.

Asked by a reporter in Moscow whether Assad should resign, Annan, who is serving as the joint envoy on Syria for the Arab League and the United Nations, said: "That is one of the issues the Syrians will have to decide. Our effort is to help the Syrians come to the table and find a way out of all this. It may in the end come to that, but it's not up to me, it's up to the Syrians."

So far, Annan has not been able to secure agreements from either the Syrian government or the armed opposition to accept a U.N. supervised cease-fire agreement. But he held high-level meeting with top officials from Russia, including President Dmitry Medvedev over the weekend, and headed out today for a visit to Beijing for meetings with top Chinese officials tomorrow, part of a last ditch effort to persuade Assad to rein in his security forces and negotiate a political settlement with the opposition.  

"Time is of the essence. This cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely," he told reporters at Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow. "The message I would also like to put out today is that the transitional winds blowing today cannot be easily resisted, or cannot be resisted for long. The only way to deal with this is through reform, through change that respects democratic principles, individual dignity, the rule of law and human rights."

Annan is seeking to enlist the support of top Russian and Chinese leaders in ratcheting pressure on the Syrian leader to halt a year-long crackdown on anti-government demonstrators that has left more than 8,000 people dead and delivered the country to the early phases of a civil war.

Annan said he was confident that Russia, which has been accused by the United States and other Western partners of abetting President Assad, is acting in good faith to achieve a peaceful outcome to the crisis. "They are prepared ... to work with me not only in supporting the approach and the plans I've put on the table but also in encouraging the parties to move in the same direction ... to settle this issue peacefully."

"I think they do have influence," he added, "and they have indicated they will use that influence to help me constructively."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

A key member of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry into alleged crimes in Syria resigned today, citing Syria's ongoing refusal to permit the team into the country to carry out its investigations.

Yakin Ertuk, a Turkish national who serves as one of the commission's three members, made the announcement in a meeting in New York with non-government organizations, according to a source who attended the meeting.

“I resigned today from the Commission of Inquiry because of Syria’s refusal to grant the Commission access. This is one of the main obstacles that hampered the work of the Commission. Without access to Syria the work of the commission is very difficult.” 

The move comes as the U.N. Human Rights Council decided today to extend the commission's inquiry, allowing it to continue its investigation at least through September. The commission has largely relied on human rights groups, opposition elements, and the testimony of Syrian refugees who fled the violence, primarily into Jordan and Turkey.

The three-member commission, chaired by a Brazilian diplomat and legal scholar, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, traveled to New York this week to press the U.N. Security Council to use its influence to convince the government to invite the team into the country to conduct its investigation. Karin Konig Abuzayd is the third member.

"I hope that our friends in the Security Council will try to convince the Syrian government that it is in its own interest that we enter Syria," Pinheiro told reporters this week.

Last month, the commission concluded that Syria's top military commanders and government officials have committed widespread and systematic human rights violations amounting to crimes against humanity. It presented the U.N. Human Rights Council with a secret list of the names of individuals and military units suspected of bearing greatest responsibility for orchestrating or carrying out these abuses.

The report, which was released this morning in Geneva, represents a devastating account of the Syrian government's role in using excessive force -- including the indiscriminate shelling of restive towns -- to crush an uprising that began in March 2011, as a peaceful protest movement. The commission also documented rights violations by members of the armed opposition movement formed by military defectors, which has drawn increasingly from members of the general population.

But it said the overwhelming majority of abuses were carried out by government security forces and pro-government militias. "The government has manifestly failed in its responsibility to protect the populations; its forces have committed widespread, systematic and gross human rights violations, amounting to crimes against humanity, with the apparent knowledge and consent of the highest levels of the State" reads the commission report. It added: "anti-government armed groups have also committed abuses, although not comparable in scale and organization with those carried out by the state."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Mukesh Kapila, a former U.N. envoy to Sudan who was among the first to raise the alarm over atrocities in Darfur, recently returned to Sudan, sneaking into the Nuba Mountains to assess humanitarian conditions in a province that has seen violence and been cut off from international assistance.

The Nuba Mountains have been the center of fighting between Sudanese forces and rebels allied with newly independent South Sudan. Sudan's government in Khartoum, which launched a major offensive aimed at crushing the rebellion, has refused to allow U.N. humanitarian aid workers into the region to witness what is happening and assist hundreds of thousands facing looming famine.

Kapila and other Sudan peace activists, including film star George Clooney, have traveled to the Nuba mountains in recent weeks to raise awareness about the plight of the Nubans, and pressed government officials to take dramatic steps to avert hunger.

"People are living on rats, wild flowers, and fruits," Kapila said in a telephone interview with Turtle Bay. Kapila, who was representing the advocacy group Aegis Trust, made the case that the situation has grown so desire that foreign donors need to bypass the United Nations delivery system and provide direct assistance to local groups, some of which have links to the rebels, to stave off a massive humanitarian calamity. If some aid is diverted to armed fighters challenging the government so be it.

"In my view, cross-border operations are necessary," Kapila said. "Those who don't want to do it don't have the moral high ground to stand in the way.

The United States has warned that the country this month will reach a phase four-level food emergency, one stage short of full-out famine, without a major relief effort. And American officials have been quietly building up food stocks in the area and are considering the prospects of supporting cross-border aid distribution operations that are opposed by the Sudanese government, according to senior U.N. officials and private aid groups.The move follows an increasing push by a group of seven human rights advocacy groups, including the Enough Project and United to End Genocide, which appealed to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, last month to support cross-border aid. "Counter-intuitively, sending aid into Sudan by any means necessary -- backed by heavy press for humanitarian corridors -- might be the best way to compel the regime to lift its aid embargo," Enough Project founder John Prendergast and Clooney wrote in December.

Officials say that Rice is sympathetic to the argument for cross-border operations, which were used to stave off hunger in the Nuba Mountains during the 1990s. The relief assistance then was channeled through several Norwegian and American relief organizations with operations in the area.

Princeton Lyman, the U.S.'s special envoy for Sudan, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today that while the United States would prefer the U.N. secure Khartoum's consent for aid deliveries it is considering doing it without it. "Should Khartoum agree to allow access to international humanitarian organizations across the lines of fighting, there must be swift progress on implementation. If necessary, we will examine ways to provide indirect support to Sudanese humanitarian actors to reach the most vulnerable. We have monitoring and accountability tools to make sure that civilians would be the beneficiaries of these activities. Nevertheless, an international program, as proposed by the U.N. and its partners, is the best means to reach the most people and we continue to urge the government to approve it."

But the proposal has faced stiff resistance from the U.N.'s chief humanitarian relief agencies, including the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, and several humanitarian relief groups with operations in Sudan. They fear that the effort would provoke the government into moving against relief agencies, and would undermine the chief principle of humanitarian neutrality.

"I've made it clear on many occasions that I do not support cross-border operations unless they are agreed by both governments, the governments of Sudan and South Sudan," said Valerie Amos, the U.N. humanitarian relief coordinator. "And indeed the government of Sudan have said that they would see any kind of cross-border operation as a hostile act."

Amos said that she has proposed that the Sudanese government allow international relief workers to have "cross line" access to displaced civilians in rebel-controlled areas of South Kordofan by crossing through government-controlled territory, not through the border. The anti-government rebels, known as the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (North), have agreed to the plan, but Khartoum has not provided a response.

The Sudanese government kicked the United Nations out of the Nuba Mountains last summer, arguing that their services were no longer needed following the end of the countries' decades-long civil war.

A landmark 2005 peace deal ending Sudan's bloody civil war between north and south paved the way for the latter's independence, but it never resolved the fate of their Nuban allies, who remain subject to northern rule.

The local forces were supposes to disarm following a "popular consultation" that was intended to determine the regions relationship with Khartoum. But the rival forces were never integrated, and the popular consultation never took place.

In May, Khartoum ordered the Nuban forces to either turn over their weapons and submit to northern rule or move to the south. A month later, as the world's attention was focused on South Sudan's independence, Khartoum opened its new military front in the Sudanese territory of South Kordofan, in the country's Nuba Mountains region.

The situation in South Kordofan bears some similarities with Darfur, where Sudanese forces, backed by Arab militias, mounted a brutal counterinsurgency campaign -- including large-scale killings and massive displacement of civilians -- against the region's restive tribes. In one ominous twist, South Kordofan's new governor, Ahmed Haroun, a member of Sudan's ruling National Congress Party, is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of committing war crimes against Darfurians.

However, the local forces in South Kordofan are far more heavily armed than their Darfurian counterparts and have exercised control over a large swath of the territory. Sudanese officials charge the Nubans with precipitating the latest round of violence by reinforcing their military presence in recent months and refusing to meet their obligation under previous agreements to disarm and attacking local security outposts.

The fate of Sudan's Nubans has become a growing source of concern among human rights observers. Kapila, who traveled to the Nuban Mountains with a rebel escort, said he witnessed a veritable wasteland.

"What did I see?" he asked. "Basically, as you drive in, you see totally deserted countryside, burnt village after burnt village after burnt village."

The few remaining locals, he said, are terrorized by daily bombings from government Antonov airplanes. In the town of Taroji, he saw two churches hit by overhead bombs, while a local mosque was left untouched. He saw boxes of Mark 4 anti-personnel mines (bearing Farsi writing, and thus apparently of Iranian origin), that had been seized by anti-government forces when they captured the town last month. Spent munitions of Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, and even U.S. origin were found in towns that faced attacks by government forces.

In the town of Dar, in the Nuba Mountains, he encountered a group of woman collecting water at a pump when an Antonov began its approach, forcing the women to flee to a nearby hill where they sought refugee in hidden nooks, crannies, and caves.

"I was totally paralyzed because I'm not used to Antonovs flying over my head," he said. "These Antonov bombers go around terrorizing the population almost every day."

Kapila said that anti-government forces of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (North), also known as the ninth division, have gradually expanded their control of territory, providing an opening for the delivery of aid from South Sudan.

"These people are being cleared away," Kapila said. If we don't act fast, he added, "we will end up with a situation where Khartoum will delay assistance until it has cleansed the area. The same thing happened in Darfur."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Diplomats, by trade, are not naturally funny people.

And the lofty "permanent representatives," as the most senior U.N.-based ambassadors are called, are often among the least funny.

They can come across as a bit too earnest, overly confident, even pompous, and they are usually pitching a cause that doesn't translate well into snappy one-liners. While they may possess masterful negotiating skills they're rarely quick enough on their feet to parry a lethal jab from a hardened comic. And frankly, how does one offer up a riposte when the national honor has been mocked?

But every season, there they are, lining up for appearances on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, confident that they can take advantage of a massive audience that could never be reached through a U.N. press conference.

But they commit comedy at their own peril.

Ask Switzerland's U.N. ambassador Peter Maurer, who got skewered by the Daily Show's faux news reporter John Oliver over his country's neutrality during World War II. ("Mr. Ambassador, is that neutral anger, or real anger?") Or Nassir al-Nasser, Qatar's then U.N. ambassador, who got visibly tense when Oliver challenged his pronunciation of "Qatar" and asked him what his country was doing to de-stabilize the Middle East. ("I'll just pause now to gauge the tension. Yep, that's tense; that is very tense indeed.")

Then there's the big screen, where the South Park creators have made a habit of lampooning U.N. officials or diplomats, including Hans Blix, the former U.N. weapons inspectors, who was thrown into a shark tank by Kim Jong Il in Team America: World Police and torn to pieces for a laugh.

But you get the point.

No one is a choicer prey for a comic than a diplomat, particularly one that speaks with a foreign accent, represents a country with a funny name, and can't take a joke.

But not everyone falls victim.

Remember how the British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, playing Ali G coaxed the former Egyptian U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali -- "the geezer" he called him -- to say, and spell out, the French word for human excrement -- "merde." But Boutros Ghali prevailed by playing along, offering his opinion on the funniest language -- "maybe Arabic" -- and patiently explaining why Disneyland can't become a U.N. member: "it's not an independent state."

Susan Rice emerged relatively unscathed in her bout with Stephen Colbert, but not before he got in a zinger about the effort to contain Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs. "Excuse me for interrupting you, but I enjoy it," Colbert said. "Iran is still working toward a nuclear weapon. [North] Korea got their nuclear weapon. I'm just as scared of both of these people. How are we stopping them? I mean, I know sternly worded letters are the bread and butter of the U.N. But maybe we should start typing them in all caps to let them know that we are really angry."

Last week, the Palestinian U.N. envoy, Riyad Mansour, tried his hand at sitting with Oliver, in a skit entitled "Who wants to be a member of the U.N.?" Mansourplayed along with the jokeas Oliver set some "preconditions" for the interview. "First this entire interview must be conducted with the 1967 vocabulary. Is that groovy with you?"

"Groovy? It is agreeable with me. Yes," Responded Mansour.

It moved onto a negotiation over who would control the studio's thermostat. (Thanks to Mondoweiss for the transcript.)

John Oliver: "...is it hot in here?"

Riyad Mansour: "It's fine."

John: "So you're not hot? Because I'm definitely hot."

Riyad: "I am not."

John: "OK, look, Ambassador, I think before we do anything, we are gonna have to come to a provisional status agreement on the temperature in this room."

Riyad: "If you want to lower the temperature, it's fine with me."

John: "But who's going to control the thermostat?"

Riyad: "The thermostat ... should be shared by all of us."

John: "Don't even think about dividing this thermostat."

Riyad: "We will not divide the thermostat, but it should be accessed by all those who cherish it and think that it is a holy place that should be accessed to everyone."

John Oliver [voiceover]: "After three and a half hours of laborious negotiations, we finally came to an agreement."

John: "We agree that at an unspecified time in the future, we will announce a summit to discuss the possibility of discussing a negotiation towards an agreement on temperature. Yes?"

Riyad: "Yes."

John: "Shake hands for the camera. Thank you, Ambassador, this is a historic day."

Riyad: "Yes indeed."

So, how did Mansour fair for the first half of the program? He remained on message, keeping the focus on Palestine's bid for U.N. membership. And he didn't lose his temper. It helped that Oliver went a little easy on him, avoiding any awkward questions about suicide bombers or rockets from Gaza. So, let's see how he did in the game show portion of the interview.

John: "Hi Riyad where are you from, Riyad?

Riyad: "I'm from Palestine."

John: "Palestine? I've never heard of that. Ok, so question number one: What does U.N. stand for?

Riyad: [Long pause] "United Nations."

John: "That's correct. That's correct, Ryad, Congratulations. That's great. So, how do you think it's going so far?

Riyad: "We're doing good."

John: "Ok... It's the bonus round. You've come all this way. Now do you take what you've won so far ... or do you take what's inside the mystery box"

Riyad: "I take what's inside the mystery box."

John: "He's going to go for the mystery box. Ok good luck. [Opens box and removes a card with the verdict.]

John: "Riyad, oh I'm sorry it's a veto from the U.S."

Riyad: "If we're vetoed once well come back again."

John: "That's the spirit. He'll come back again, next time."

Indeed, if there's a comic willing to poke fun at him, he probably will.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

By Colum Lynch

Last week, I reviewed the diplomatic memoir of Kai Eide, a veteran Norwegian diplomat who served as the U.N.'s top envoy in Afghanistan from February 2008 to March 2010.

The book is chock full of dramatic nuggets: near escapes from suicide attackers, secret talks with the Taliban, and private battles with Richard Holbrooke, who opened his first meeting with the newly minted Norwegian envoy with the question, "When does your contract expire?"

But its title, Power Struggle Over Afghanistan, is enough to put off even the most ardent followers of Afghanistan's recent political history.

Books with riveting titles, like Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, Peter Bergen's The Longest War or Ahmed Rashid's Pakistan on the Brink, have fed a market for insights from a region that has bedeviled foreign powers for centuries.

But how can the U.N. be heard in a crowd of such dramatic titles?

Not with a title like this: Afghanistan's Troubled Transition: Politics, Peacekeeping, and the 2004 Presidential Election.

Now here's a book title that screams "don't read me," unless, that is, you work in the U.N. "lessons learned" department or you're pursuing a Ph.D in international elections. The price tag, $69, is also a sign that this volume is destined for libraries and classrooms.

Which is a shame, really.

Because it is likely one of the best book you can find that explains why Afghanistan -- after receiving billions of dollars of Western aid -- has been wholly incapable of establishing durable local institutions that could keep the country together after the U.S. and its military allies leave. The book, written by Scott Steward Smith, a former American aide to Eide, details the real-world compromises that U.N. officials, under pressure from the Afghan president and the United States, make that undermine long-term efforts toward development. It names names, offering a sober critique of decisions by U.S., U.N., and Afghan players, from Karzai to American envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to a host of U.N. envoys, including Lakhdar Brahimi.

But both books are something of an exception.

In fact, U.N. officials rarely write books, and certainly not books that are worth reading, because candid revelation of bureaucratic bungling or big power cock-ups can harm a career.

Some of the most readable accounts of life in the field by U.N. envoys -- including Alvaro De Soto, a Peruvian national who wrote a withering critique of the U.N.'s Middle East policy, or Charles Petrie, the French U.N. resident coordinator in Burma from 2002 to 2007 -- were buried in classified end-of-mission reports, written for the benefit of the secretary general and a handful of other U.N. insiders. "From Burma‘s remote jungle capital of Naypyidaw, the image of life that emerges in official reports for the government‘s military rulers appears sunny," I wrote in a piece for the Washington Post describing Petrie's report. "Economic growth in Burma has reached about 13 percent annually over the past five years, they say. Literacy is also soaring, with more than 96 percent of citizens able to read and write."

Petrie was ultimately kicked out of Burma by the regime he had mocked, but he survived in the U.N. system by restricting his thoughts to private reports, although they didn't remain public for long.

Eide, who just turned 63 and is headed toward retirement, has little to fear from bureaucratic retaliation.

Smith, a promising electoral expert, resigned his post at the U.N. around the time his book was published.

If history has anything to teach, he was probably wise to do so.

One of the catchiest titles to emerge from the U.N.'s rank and file, Emergency Sex and other Desperate Measures, told the story of three young U.N. humanitarian relief workers struggling to do good in the world, while sometimes misbehaving.

One of the authors had already left the organization, placing them beyond the reach of the censors. But another, Andrew Thomson, a doctor from New Zealand, was pretty much driven out of the organization -- though he was later reinstated and promoted after the intervention of a whistleblower organization. But the U.N. brass viewed the effort as an act of disloyalty and the book as excessively sensational.

The threat of going against the firm has led to a dearth of memorable U.N. diplomatic memoirs in the years since Brian Urquhart wrote, a Life At Peace and War, a classic autobiography of the former World War II veteran's life as a paratrooper, intelligence officer, and later as a Nazi hunter, before his storied career that placed him at the center of the U.N.'s invention of peacekeeping.

But the books with good titles are generally written by U.N. officials who have left the organization: Backstabbing for Beginners, a memoir by Michael Soussan, of his life working on the Oil for Food program, and Shake Hands with the Devil, an account of Gen. Romeo Dallaire's failure to secure official approval to confront Rwanda's mass killers during the country's 1994 genocide.

Still, U.N. officials quietly continue to pen books, mostly for think tanks and university imprints, including The Procedure of the UN Security Council, by Sydney D. Bailey and Sam Daws, a 689-page reference guide to anything you want to know about the security council's activities, Global Governance and the UN: An Unifinished Journey, by Thomas Weis and Ramesh Thakur.

But some of the most readable books are hidden behind bland titles.

The UN Secretariat: A Brief History (1945-2006), a slim volume published in 2006 by the International Peace Academy, now known as the International Peace Institute, was written by Thant Myint-U and Amy Scott. The book  provides a serviceable history of the U.N. Secretariat with lots of juicy tidbits, like Kurt Waldheim's costly renovation of his headquarters -- out with Dag Hammarskjold's stylish Scandinavian furniture and in with the seventies wood-paneling and leather couches -- and efforts to secure a posh residence for himself overlooking Central Park. (He eventually had to settle for a posh Georgian-style townhouse on the East River, leased for free from the United Nations Association).

Than Myint-U, a former U.N. official and grandson of U-Thant, has gone on to write well received books about Burma, including one with this poetic title: The River of Lost Footsteps: A Personal History of Burma.

But of course you shouldn't judge a book by its title.

A few years back, I received a review copy of Edward C.  Luck's Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization, 1919-1999.

Dismissing it as another dull think-tank production I dumped it in the wastepaper basket to make room on my bookshelf.

A few years later, reporting a story on the rise of the Tea Party and U.N. bashing throughout American history, I ran across some excerpts of the book online.

I immediately ordered a copy of the book from Amazon. It remains, by far, the best book on the subject.

Luckily, with a title like that, there were plenty of copies available.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

It's never been so hard to give money away.

For more than three years, Equatorial Guinea's oil-rich dictator, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, has been struggling to convince the U.N. Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to accept $3 million to administer a life-sciences prize in his name.

The effort, which has set off a storm of criticism from critics of that government, ran into trouble again this week as UNESCO's lawyer counseled the Paris-based U.N. agency not to touch the money, according to a copy of the internal advisory obtained by Turtle Bay, without further review of the source of the funding.

In 2008, UNESCO established the UNESCO-Obiang Nguema Mbasogo International Prize for Research in the Life Sciences, and wrote a $3 million check to fund awards for individuals who have achieved advances in the field that have improved the well-being of Africans.

But the money has never been spent and the prize has been mired in controversy ever since.

Critics of the regime -- including a coalition of human rights groups, anti-corruption advocates, and EquatoGuinean exiles -- maintain that the Obiang is dipping into public funds to underwrite a costly prize to burnish his personal image on the world stage.

They say the money would be put to better use improving the standard of living within Equatorial Guinea, a country with a per capita GDP on par with many European countries but where the vast majority of citizens live in abject poverty.

Last November, Obiang sought to overcome opposition to the prize by removing his name and change the prize to the UNESCO-Equatorial Guinea International Prize. But that clearly wasn't' enough. A UNESCO working group established last year to determine whether to approve the award failed to reach consensus last week, leaving it to the UNESCO's board of governors, who are meeting through Friday of this week, to make a decision. They will take up the matter on Wednesday, but it may have to be delayed even further.

In an internal advisory, obtained by Turtle Bay, UNESCO's lawyer Maria Vicien-Miburn, said that Equatorial Guinea had initially proposed that the prize be funded through a non-profit organization, called the Obiang Nguema Mbasogo Foundation for the Preservation of Life.

But last month, Equatorial Guinea's Minister for Education and Science Joaquin Mbana Nchama informed UNESCO that the funds for the prize actually came from the state treasury. Ten days later, on Feb. 22, the government's U.N. delegation sent a note to UNESCO stating that "the donor of the prize is from now on the government of Equatorial Guinea."

"In light of these two recent communications from the government it is clear that the Obiang Foundation is not -- or is no longer -- the donor of the prize funds, as required by the Statutes adopted by the Executive Board. Accordingly, there is a material discrepancy between the Prize Statutes and the Government's explanations in its recent communications with respect to the source of the funding of the prize. Under these circumstances, the Legal Office could not advise the Director General to use the funds currently in UNESCO accounts for implementation of the prize."

In the meantime, Obiang's government has been seeking credit for other awards.

In December, the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation hosted President Obiang as its guest of honor at its Beacon of Africa Award. President Obiang, who was then serving as the rotating president of the African Union, received the award on behalf of the African organization.

But Equatorial Guinea's embassy announced, erroneously, that the award had been given to President Obiang.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

In his first extensive remarks on the Syria crisis, Kofi Annan, the former U.N. chief and current U.N.-Arab League envoy, made no mention of what has become the centerpiece of the Arab League's diplomatic strategy: a political transition to a government of national unity.

The omission may be a bit of diplomatic wizardry by the U.N. veteran, a shrewd effort to downplay a provision that Damascus finds objectionable, easing the path to face-to-face talks with Bashar al-Assad, and ultimately a deal that would compel the Syrian president to yield power.

But Annan's remarks have also served to reframe the debate over the Arab and Western approach by placing Assad at the center of any potential diplomatic settlement, and defining the immediate goals as relief and stability. He also chided governments who are seeking to use the current crisis to topple the regime by military means.

"The first thing we need to do, as the secretary-general has said, is to do everything we can to stop the violence and the killing, to facilitate humanitarian access and ensure that the needy are looked after, and work with the Syrians in coming up with a peaceful solution which respects their aspirations and eventually stabilizes the country," Annan said late Wednesday, at a press conference with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

"I know there are people who have other ideas, that dialogue may not be the way to go and one should use other means," he added. "But, I think, for the sake of the people -- for the sake of the Syrian people who are caught in the middle -- a peaceful solution, through dialogue and a speedy one is a way to go."

Radwan Zaideh, a member of the Syrian National Council (SNC), told Turtle Bay that the group is concerned that the focus of the international community has shifted since a high-level meeting of Western and Arab governments in Tunisia, from the need for a speedy political transition to the need to step up humanitarian assistance to Syrians displaced or injured by the violence. "We should not only focus on the security aspects of the Arab League plan but political aspects," he said. "Assad has to step down."

But Zaideh said that the SNC thought Annan was a perfect candidate for the job because of his stature as a leading international diplomat and because he has the credibility to bring China, Russia, and Iran on board for a political settlement.

Indeed, Annan tried to draw together all the competing diplomatic strands, including a high-level Russian initiative to prod the opposition into engaging in talks with Assad's government. "If we are going to succeed, it is extremely important that we all accept there should be one process of mediation -- the one both the U.N. and the Arab League has asked me to lead," Annan said. "When you have more than one and people take their own initiatives, the parties play with the mediators. If one mediator says something they do not want they got to the other. So, one single unitary process, and it is when the international community speaks with one voice, that voice is powerful."

For now, the problem is how to get to Damascus.

Annan maintained cordial ties with Assad when he served as U.N. secretary general. President George W. Bush, seeking Syrian backing for a 2006 ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, looked to Kofi Annan to persuade Assad.

"I feel like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen," Bush said in a conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair that was inadvertently picked up by a live microphone. In her memoirs, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would credit Annan with persuading Assad not to stand in the way of a final ceasefire deal ending the war.

Asked about his relationship with Assad, Annan said, "We haven't been in touch for a couple of years and so I will not presume anything. We will make the demarches and time will tell.  But I would plead with him that he should engage, not only with me, but with the process that we are launching today."

Richard Gowan, a specialist on the United Nations at New York University's Center for Global Cooperation, said Annan's most important assets is his relationship with Assad, and that it is only natural that he would tread cautiously in his first days to preserve prospects for exploiting it.

"In Syria, it's not a situation like Kenya, where he can claim legitimacy as a great African statesman," Gowan said. "He has a personal history of talking with Assad and he may be able to have conversation that no else can have. The biggest challenge is what happens when he talks to the SNC or the rebels. He's not dealing with two coherent political parties, and he has no personal links to any of the rebels."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch